Gaza rocket fire resumes

[Liara]

tell it to the people that were killed or injured in international waters by IDF pirates. turkey your ally was less than impressed if i remember.

You know, when about 10 people start attacking you with metal pipes, knives etc. and try to throw you overboard, you react.
And if they had nothing to hide, why did they object to being inspected like any other ship? Why did they attack IDF soldiers as soon as they boarded?

[Lyrie]

Also, have you got a source for your claim?

Of course he doesnt.
People think they know everything because they are effected by Hamas's propaganda, but that for sure makes it all true!

Truth remains - Israel supply food, water, medical supply and electircity to Gaza strip while Hamas fires rockets.

[soulcrusher]

people defending themslves in international waters Liara. you had no right being there, but hey israel doesnt care does it. you bully who you like and just dont care.

[Kasierith]

Not going to argue the details with you, if you've looked into the situation at all you'd know that what happened inside the compound is still not at all clear. The bottom line is that the ATF/FBI task force sent tanks with tear gas and automatic weapons support into a civilian area to force the issue instead of slowly and peacefully resolving the situation - which is what President Clinton initially wanted to do until the Attorney General convinced him otherwise. You asked if people would freak out if the US killed 50 people to take out one man. Sorry if you don't like the answer

.

Slowly and peacefully? Since when is a 51 day operation rushed? And yes, the cause is uncertain which is exactly why I gave the two main theories behind it, neither of which in any way connect it to what is happening in Palestine. You have disputed nothing, but instead presented a flimsy strawman to attempt to defend your point.

I laughed when I read this. Hamas doesn't run on the "liberty or death" concept. Hamas is a terrorist organization who for years killed Israeli civilians indiscriminately and gained legitimacy when the Palestinians decided that they were the best way to fight Israel. How's that working out for them, by the way?

About as well as it was before Hamas. As for Hamas not running on that concept...

"The Hamas Charter (or Covenant), issued in 1988, outlined the organization's position on many issues at the time, identifies Hamas as the Muslim Brotherhood in Palestine and declares its members to be Muslims who "fear God and raise the banner of Jihad in the face of the oppressors." The charter states "our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious" and calls for the eventual creation of an Islamic state in Palestine, in place of Israel and the Palestinian Territories,[36] and the obliteration or dissolution of Israel.[71][72]"

Hamas was formed due to Israeli actions against Palestine.

As to the American Revolution, one of the major differences is that the colonies actually had a chance of winning because Britain wasn't willing to commit enough of their forces to subdue their fellow Englishmen. Also I admit that my history classes were a bit biased, but I'm fairly sure that the colonies never sent saboteurs into Britain with the purpose of blowing up Parliament, or targets with even less strategic value. But yeah, other than that I guess Hamas and the 13 colonies operated exactly along the same lines.

The colonists tarred and feathered tax collectors to show the British a lesson. Epitome of humanitarianism there. And what about John the Painter? Boston Tea Party? Treatment of British prisoners? Use of guerrilla warfare and attacking behind the lines at the beginning stages of the war, before the militia was formed/armed enough to fight more openly on a larger scale? You seem to be subjectively denying any relationship because the existence of said relationship would distress you.

Oh, is that why a multinational coalition was formed to stop Russia from absolutely kicking the shit out of Chechnya? Or when China crushed Tibet? I must have missed all of that. Unless it's in Europe's backyard(Serbia) or a complete wreck of a nation(Rwanda), or someone decides to royally piss off the US(Iraq, Afghanistan), the UN usually doesn't get involved beyond a slap on the wrist and a sternly worded letter(Iraq again). By all means provide actual examples if you disagree.

Yes, because superpowers like China and Russia equal Israel, and its not like there were a few decades of two nuclear superpowers glaring at each other and showing just how fruitful such interventions would be. Its too bad we don't have more relative examples of international intervention like... oh.... Libya, for example. Or Rwanda. I find it hard to believe you don't realize such interventions occurred, and so I must wonder why you are subjectively denying these specific instances. It bespeaks of a lack of understanding about the inner mechanics of how the Security Council works.

You're right, you didn't specifically say that Israel deserves all the blame for the situation. You just have heavily implied it in every single post you've made in this thread, with no real critique of Hamas to balance it out. My bad for saying clearly what you were saying obliquely, I guess?

Hamas' crimes are that it resorts to acts of terrorism as its only means of combating Israel, which while understandable is in no way excusable. The illegitimacy of their actions is not up for discussion, because it is self evident. Why would I waste time discussing something that we probably both agree on to begin with? That said, their actions are still a direct response to Israel's aggressive tactics, and in terms of what can actually be done to resolve the conflict focus should be put on Israel, for the reasons I have already stated.

The blockade was deemed legal under international law by an international UN inquiry committee.

What started this round of escalation was a group of Popular Resistance Committee members who opened fire on an Israeli patrol.

And how exactly did Israel start the conflict? By being attacked by 5 different Arab countries along with the local Arab population on the day of its founding?

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/13/i...says-un-panel/ you were saying?

Again. Read a timeline. Its really, really not that hard. I'm speaking specifically of this round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you want to mix stages of history together, than I guess the US should invade Britain for burning down the White House.

[Deleted]

Of course he doesnt.

Yeah, except I listed the sources.

People think they know everything because they are effected by Hamas's propaganda, but that for sure makes it all true!

And some people are blinded by Israeli propaganda and will defend any and all Israeli action without any critical thought passing their brain.

[Liara]

people defending themslves in international waters Liara. you had no right being there, but hey israel doesnt care does it. you bully who you like and just dont care.

Defending themselves from an inspection? By viciously attacking soldiers who are performing the inspection? Interesting.

[Deleted]

Defending themselves from an inspection? By viciously attacking soldiers who are performing the inspection? Interesting.

There was no justification for executing those people on the boat, it was not an imminent danger to anyone and it was the IDF's own choice to board.

[Liara]

.
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/13/i...says-un-panel/ you were saying?

Again. Read a timeline. Its really, really not that hard. I'm speaking specifically of this round of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If you want to mix stages of history together, than I guess the US should invade Britain for burning down the White House.

Who's to say which report is the correct one? Of course it's not something that will be clear cut.

Also, why do you feel the need to write in a condescending way? Because I don't agree with you?

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 09:39 PM ----------

There was no justification for executing those people on the boat, it was not an imminent danger to anyone and it was the IDF's own choice to board.

First of all, it was not an execution. It was self defense, because when you're basically being lynched by tens of people, you start fearing for your life, and you damn well should.

[Deleted]

Who's to say which report is the correct one? Of course it's not something that will be clear cut.

What's clear cut is that the blockade is not only aimed at stopping weapons because at various times Israel has blockaded many items that have no military purpose at all.

[Lyrie]

And some people are blinded by Israeli propaganda and will defend any and all Israeli action without any critical thought passing their brain.

Thats the thing. Im not effected by any propaganda. Unlike you I try to look at things objectively and I cast aside my own opinions.
Its a sad world to live in when you see the strong and only democracy in the Middle East being accused for crimes against humanity while a brutal terror organization gets your sympathy.

[Kasierith]

Who's to say which report is the correct one? Of course it's not something that will be clear cut.

Also, why do you feel the need to write in a condescending way? Because I don't agree with you?

Because it is a point that I have made repeatedly, and can be analyzed simply by looking at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timelin...inian_conflict

As for your article saying that the blockade is fine by international law.... read deeper into the report you're supporting.

http://news.antiwar.com/2011/09/01/u...-mavi-marmara/

In addition, an except from said report vindicating the blockade, which I went and read through.

The blockade was intended as a form of economic and political warfare. It was not restricted to items that could be used against Israel, but also included ordinary consumer items with no security purpose. As such, it has a disproportionate and punitive impact on the civilian population and has aggravated the humanitarian crisis in Gaza."

[Deleted]

First of all, it was not an execution. It was self defense, because when you're basically being lynched by tens of people, you start fearing for your life, and you damn well should.

Looks like a clear cut execution to me, military unit against a mob of guys wielding plastic chairs and pieces of pipes or whatever. It just shows the incredible incompetence of IDF to put soldiers into that situation and then start shooting. The ship was not a danger to anyone, it could've been stopped without this braindamaged boarding attempt.

[Kasierith]

There was no justification for executing those people on the boat, it was not an imminent danger to anyone and it was the IDF's own choice to board.

That situation is an example where there was clearly blame on either side. It is by no means a clear cut "Israel was the bad guy" scenario. Neither side's hands are clean in this mess.

[Liara]

What's clear cut is that the blockade is not only aimed at stopping weapons because at various times Israel has blockaded many items that have no military purpose at all.

Tell me this, please - why doesn't Egypt allow any goods to enter Gaza via the Rafah crossing, which they fully control since Israel withdrew from Gaza?

As for Israel, it doesn't allow very specific items (about 30 right now) that are either completely military such as weapons, or have a dual use such as reinforced concrete (and those can enter when approved by the PA and supervised by the international community).


Also, people are now resorting to much to personal attacks or simply being rude.
Just because we don't agree with each other doesn't mean we can't respect each other, sheesh.

[Deleted]

Thats the thing. Im not effected by any propaganda. Unlike you I try to look at things objectively and I cast aside my own opinions.

You realize that's not true, right? You jumped in claiming I can't give sources even though that's exactly what I did. If anyone here is unable to see the issue objectively, it's most definitely you.

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 07:48 PM ----------

That situation is an example where there was clearly blame on either side. It is by no means a clear cut "Israel was the bad guy" scenario. Neither side's hands are clean in this mess.

The whole thing was caused by IDF, they could've stopped the boat without attempting their incompetent boarding of the ship that lead to the situation.

---------- Post added 2012-11-20 at 07:49 PM ----------

As for Israel, it doesn't allow very specific items (about 30 right now) that are either completely military such as weapons, or have a dual use such as reinforced concrete (and those can enter when approved by the PA and supervised by the international community).

Israel has blocked every single item I listed at one time. Care to explain how they are weapons or "dual use"?

[primion]

The Truth about Israel by an Israeli. Its not a simple situation. We all applauded Mel Gibson in the Movie the Patriot when he kicked the British rear for killing his son and burning his home. Most American's are so indoctrinated by what they think they know when they don't know the whole picture.

There are 3 laws in Israel this So Called Democracy. 1 For Israeli Arabs. 1 for Jews. 1 for Palestinians. The Palestinians are treated and have about as much rights as blacks in the old south. They can be jailed with out trial for years. Wake up and don't be a pawn or you can go on being ignorant and asleep.

youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TOaxAckFCuQ

[soulcrusher]

the IDF had no right being on the boat in the first place. maybe stop throwing your weight around and lying through your teeth people might find you more credible.

[cubby]

the IDF had no right being on the boat in the first place. maybe stop throwing your weight around and lying through your teeth people might find you more credible.

Of course they did, the blockade was sanctioned by the UN - they can inspect incoming boats just like any other nation (such as, say, Egypt).

[madokbro]

Defending themselves from an inspection? By viciously attacking soldiers who are performing the inspection? Interesting.

According to Turkish media, the cargo of the ship Israeli soldiers boarded was only supplies for Arabs. It was boarded in international waters in an agressive manner and the people responded to the supressive and unjust behaviour of the Israeli soldiers.

I assume Israeli media had a different point of view, obviously, considering you.

I don't know who lies at which point and I frankly don't care. You have to understand Turkish citizens are in a lot of stress in international waters, considering our relations with our neighbours frequently boils up to the point of war, Syria, Iraq, even Greece from time to time. For years, it was miraculous last minute events that let Turkey evade a combat situation.
Also, average Turkish citizen's view on Israel is very agressive. We continuously find Israeli military equipment and supplies in PKK camps. One of our journalists, Uğur Mumcu, who spent years of his life researching on Israel's support on the armed separatist organizatons of Turkey was killed by a car bomb. For a Turkish citizen, "Israel is a ridiculous country which is the size of a city in Turkey and we can't intervene the little rat because lolnukes, lolweaponscontracts, or lolusa", take your pick.

So when those soldiers boarded a ship full of "very angry people", they should have been at least briefed in the matter to avoid any hostile action that can result in death. IF they had the intention of keeping it calm and easy and not "lol go fuck yourselves (((.". I find it really hard to trust any statement made by Israel, considering it's record in the past few years.

[davesurfer]

Here is the types of people Israel is dealing with. This is sick no matter what the situation.

DO NOT CLICK IF YOU ARE OFFENDED BY GRAPHIC PICTURES -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-tomorrow.html

How do you negotiate with people who ENJOY dragging bodies behind a motorcycle. There is something wrong with people like this, and unfortunately they are the ones running the show. Look at the joy on a lot of their faces, sick!